Opinions on Charter Arms .38 Special vs. S&W 642

[PUCKER]

The wife and I were doing our part to stimulate the local economy this past weekend (ammo just keeps on going UP!). Ran across a Charter Arms revolver in .38 Special. It was L I G H T - wondered if anyone here has any experience with Charter Arms. The wife has pretty much decided that she'd like a .38 Special revolver, she keeps on coming back to the Smith & Wesson Model 642 Airweight, I really like it as well. Neither she nor I have fired the Airweight or a charter. My experience with revolvers is limited to larger models (ie - S&W Model 13) and the tiny (ie - NAA .22 Mag). I appreciate the input. I do know that either of these two will pack a punch in the felt-recoil department - that's not a concern for me, but for the wife, it is, I need to get her hands-on shooting one.

[The Annoyed Man]

We own two 642 S&Ws and have fired them both, but I have not either seen or fired the Charter Arms equivalent. I would imagine that the shooting experience is similar. The 642 is +P rated. I don't know if the Charter Arms pistol is. My guess is that the S&W is more expensive?

The 642 is a little bit of a handful to shoot with heavier bullets - enough that my wife doesn't really enjoy shooting hers. Her objection is that the gun kind of beats her hand up a bit, and it is difficult to shoot well with a somewhat heavy trigger. My personal criticism of it is the same, although it doesn't hurt my hand as much as it does hers. Those are the negatives.

On the positive side, the 642 is resistant to sweat, etc., being an alloy/stainless gun. With the lighter bullets, particularly in +P, it is a handy "point and shoot" pistol. It is easy to conceal in purse/pocket/holster. It is simple in operation, and it will go bang all five times you pull the trigger.

The 642 handles the lighter bullets fairly well. My wife's is carried with 110 grain "personal defense" Hydro-Shoks. I carry mine with 125 grain +P Golden Sabers.

OTH, my wife's main pistol is a Glock 19, and mine is a 3" Kimber. The revolvers are strictly "last resort" carry guns for when the larger and more powerful semi-autos just aren't practical.

I hope that helps.

[PUCKER]

Annoyed - EXCELLENT review/info, thank you!

The Charter is cheaper (at least $150 price difference). One thing the guy behind the counter said when comparing the two, in stock condition, the Charter was more comfortable for him to shoot longer due to the grip design, how it goes all the way up the handle, versus the S&W which leaves some metal to punish the hand. The S&W felt tighter/more solid (and heavier) than the Charter, it felt looser (and lighter).

[CompVest]

Both are good personal defense guns but nasty things to shoot. They are the type of gun you get to carry and then buy a 4" stainless to shoot. This is my personal opinion as a small woman.

[BigRon]

Fit and finish on the S&W is better. But, I have owned 2 Charter Arms revolvers and they were both good servicable handguns. I like the quality and finish on the S&W revolvers, but that is just opinion. They both make a satisfying bang when you squeeze the trigger. The Charter Arms revolvers that I have owned and shot never malfunctioned in any way. Also, I like the fact that Charter Arms sued the crap out of a liberal newspaper for calling the type of Charter Arms pistol that was used to kill John Lennon a cheap saturday night special.

[OverEasy]

I've owned 2 different Charter Arms revolvers. I had mechanical problems with both. I've owned 5 S&W revolvers, never had a problem with any of them. The Charter Arms, Taurus, Rossi, and others are less expensive than S&W. How much is your life worth?

Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel .38+P, part# 23921, is made especially for these guns.

Take your wife to a range and let her shoot some different guns!!!!! The compact semi-autos have less recoil than a snubnose .38 and are more pleasant to shoot.

Good luck, OE

[PUCKER]

I appreciate everyone's input, thank you.